Audio recording option set to be introduced for all PIP assessments, says DWP Feb 2021

full article (audio version also available)
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...-introduced-for-all-pip-assessments-says-dwp/

 

This is such good news.

 

Over the last several years I am several several thousands of pounds worse off because I trusted an ATOS assessor to assess me fairly, and importantly not to make unfounded assumptions, know what she was doing, and to not tell barefaced lies - which I couldn't dispute as I had no evidence to do so, only my word, which apparently wasn't even worth considering if it was at variance from the pack of lies the assessor had submitted.

So, yes, good news, just have to see what happens in practice.

 

I suspect that happens a lot. Certainly a lot of people seem to say it's happened to them.

As a system this is wide open to abuse. If some assessors are prepared to misrepresent or lie about claimants then what's to stop those same assessors lying by claiming the equipment isn't working?

If I'm not mistaken the dual recording systems are similar to those used by the police. They don't seem to have the same degree of difficulty with faulty recording equipment though, do they?

This messing about with vulnerable people needs to stop. It should be fairly simple it keep a log of recording devices.

Stick an ID sticker on it that linked to a record of the make, model and serial number & location of device. A history of cleaning, maintenance & repair and who carried the work out should be recorded. Along with reports of equipment failure, what actual fault was found, who reported it, what was done to fix it and how long it took to get it fixed. Exactly like Atos, Capita and the DWP itself have probably already done for decades with the own IT kit.

I'd be very surprised if that wasn't already being done because maintenance & repair company have service level agreements that often require this type of logging so they can prove they have operated within their agreed contract. This is standard practise in offices throughout the land and has been for decades.

 

it is about time they where dragged into this century really tape cassettes and disc . when phones and other digital devices can make multiple files and share them via email .

 

I'd prefer they were dragged into another century than this one myself.

The 12th century would probably be good, they should fit right in.

 

It's about "£$%$"£^"£& time.

We got the ESA one recorded, but of course not PIP - that wasn't allowed. So we had no evidence to prove what a selective work of fiction the "healthcare professional"'s report was. There were comments in there which totally misrepresented my caree's walking ability - and we were never able to correct them to an accurate version even with an appeal. It's now too late for change as she's over pensionable age, which means her low-rate mobility payment can never be improved on. The whole system stinks.

 

Absolutely. All medico-legal assessments, in all circumstances.

The threat of being caught out is the only way to keep assessors even vaguely honest.

 

Even the small garage that MoTs my car records all the phone calls. It really, really isn't difficult.

I can see why they would argue that it needs to be done by the contractor so there can be no claim that recordings have been edited, but it's as easy to test the recording levels on a mobile phone as it is on a dual tape machine.

There are also simple strategies to get around any issues about editing, such as having a clock ticking at a low but audible level, which gives – for instance – a double tick every half minute and a triple one every minute. Any theatre sound engineer on the planet could create such a track quickly and cheaply, and streaming or playing it during an assessment would enable claimants to use their own recording devices if the assessor's developed one of the mysterious faults that seem so ubiquitous. It might not be acceptable for interviewing murder suspects, but it's perfectly adequate for benefit claimants.

 

Only if you consider claiming benefits to be a less serious crime than murder.

 

Absolutely & with personal consequences for them if they lie or misrepresent plus consequences for their employer too.

A claimant caught lying will face the consequences so why shouldn't there be consequences for an assessor?

 

That's the whole problem with outsourcing, isn't it. Companies receive financial incentives to do as many assessments as possible, and are pressured to engineer negative outcomes for as many claimants as possible. So if an assessor lies and gets away with it, they're more likely to be promoted for their success than censured as a liar.

 

Yes, but only outsourcing in certain sectors it would seem.

I have worked for an outsourcing company in a completely unrelated field. Your performance as an employee is closely monitored, even as someone who had a very technical role your ability to build a rapport and a relationship of trust with a client was extremely important.

Lying to or about a client would have consequences, it would certainly go on your record in appraisals and might even trigger disciplinary action.

Occasionally, I have been asked to do something at work which wouldn't be legal. However, if I got found out I'd probably get fired and have destroyed my own career plus there could be implications for my employer.

You were assessed by your employer who discussed your performance with your clients. Very high levels of personal accountability.

It can be done if there is the will to do it. If the primary focus is on doing the job right.

 

About flaming time! The existing system is a disgrace.

 

Nevertheless the system is working as intended or else why have the various exposes been ignored, why are so few 'suicides' related to benefits even acknowledged let alone investigated, let alone have any action taken to change things.

Why is the system deliberately set up to only process aspects of disability/illness in total isolation from the effects they, combined with other aspects of health issues in the same person, cause. In short why are they deliberately choosing to not assess the disability/health of the people they are supposed to be assessing the health and disability of.

The system is working as it was designed to, other than, from a certain perspective, far too many people get benefits on the basis of being disabled.

Or else why do they keep making the system more unfair in a seemly deliberate attempt to further restrict numbers of successful claimants..

 

Given the paltry amounts disability benefits payout I doubt it's cost saving.

I would really love to see the figures. Exactly how much does each ESA & PIP assessment cost? Especially, if you add on the cost of tribunals. Was it really cheaper to outsource it?

Why is it so difficult to find out what benefits you are actually eligible to apply for? Where is the proof that the default "computer says no" position saves money?

I don't know how accurate it is but I vaguely recall that an estimated 0.1% of the total payout by the benefit system was paid out in fraudulent claims. That includes housing benefits, pensions and so on. So the amount of fraudulently claimed via ESA & PIP would be substantially less.

Claimants are on such low incomes anyway, it's hardly as though they'll be salting an extra cash away under their mattresses. No, the chances are they'll be spending it on things that will.improve their overall health and quality of life such as better food, maybe more heating, possibly things that might reduce their use of the health service. I'm sure many would use it to fund some care and so aid employment in their local communities.

 

The HCPs are aessssed by their supervisor (and employer). They get disciplined if they make too many awards to claimants. If they allow more awards than 'the average', all their reports are reviewed and outcomes adjusted.